Analysis from Israel

With efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations having failed, both sides are now waging a global diplomatic campaign: the Palestinians to recruit support for UN recognition of a Palestinian state, and Israel to mobilize opposition to this unilateral move. But since both sides view Europe as the key battleground, it’s critical for Israel to address one of Europe’s principal discomforts with its position: its demand for recognition as a Jewish state.

This discomfort contributed significantly to the failure of last week’s Quartet meeting: Senior European diplomats told  Haaretz that the EU and Russia rejected Washington’s blueprint for negotiations in part because it called for a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one.

Granted, Europe traditionally refuses to confront Palestinians with the concessions they must make for an agreement: While repeatedly declaring Israel must withdraw to the 1967 lines and divide Jerusalem, it has never been willing to say that, for instance, Palestinian refugees can’t relocate to Israel.

But there’s also something deeper at work here. As a European diplomat once told me, Europeans are profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of a Jewish state, because to them it sounds like a “Christian state” -i.e., a religious state. And while most European countries were founded as Christian states (that’s why many still have a cross on their flags), modern-day Europeans generally have little use for religion: Just 21 percent say religion is “very important” to them, compared to 59 percent of Americans, and only 15 percent regularly attend religious services (44 percent for Americans).

True, Europe is fine with Arab and Muslim countries defining themselves as Islamic states, but this isn’t just hypocrisy. While Europeans won’t admit it, they do have a double standard: Non-Westerners can adhere to “primitive” beliefs and practices like religion, but Westerners are supposed to be secular like them. That’s precisely why Europeans are often uncomfortable with America’s overt religiosity. And if Israel wants to be considered a Western country (which it does), then in Europe’s view, it can’t be a “religious” state.

The problem is this view reflects a profound misunderstanding of what a “Jewish state” actually means. Judaism has never seen itself exclusively or even primarily as a religion; indeed, you won’t find the modern Hebrew word for “religion” anywhere in the first five books of the Bible. The Biblical terms for what we today call Jews are Am Yisrael – “the nation of Israel” – and Bnei Yisrael, “the children of Israel.” And that’s precisely the point: From a Jewish perspective, the Jews are first and foremost a nation.

Thus, the term “Jewish state” is in no way analogous to “Christian state.” Rather, it’s analogous to “French” or “Danish” or “German” state. Just as these are the respective homelands of the French, Danish and German peoples, a Jewish state is the homeland of the Jewish people.

Clearing up Europe’s misunderstanding of what a “Jewish state” actually means won’t suddenly make the EU pro-Israel. But it might ease European objections to this particular Israeli demand. Admittedly, this isn’t an easy concept to get across. But since recognition as a Jewish state is important to Israel, it can’t afford not to try.

Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

Why Israel Needs a Better Political Class

Note: This piece is a response to an essay by Haviv Rettig Gur, which can be found here

Israel’s current political crisis exemplifies the maxim that hard cases make bad law. This case is desperate. Six months after the coronavirus erupted and nine months after the fiscal year began, Israel still lacks both a functioning contact-tracing system and an approved 2020 budget, mainly because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more worried about politics than the domestic problems that Israel now confronts. The government’s failure to perform these basic tasks obviously invites the conclusion that civil servants’ far-reaching powers must not only be preserved, but perhaps even increased.

This would be the wrong conclusion. Bureaucrats, especially when they have great power, are vulnerable to the same ills as elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they are completely unaccountable to the public.

That doesn’t mean Haviv Rettig Gur is wrong to deem them indispensable. They provide institutional memory, flesh out elected officials’ policies, and supply information the politicians may not know and options they may not have considered. Yet the current crisis shows in several ways why they neither can nor should substitute for elected politicians.

First, bureaucrats are no less prone to poor judgment than politicians. As evidence, consider Siegal Sadetzki, part of the Netanyahu-led triumvirate that ran Israel’s initial response to the coronavirus. It’s unsurprising that Gur never mentioned Sadetzki even as he lauded the triumvirate’s third member, former Health Ministry Director General Moshe Bar Siman-Tov; she and her fellow Health Ministry staffers are a major reason why Israel still lacks a functional test-and-trace system.

Sadetzki, an epidemiologist, was the ministry’s director of public-health services and the only member of the triumvirate with professional expertise in epidemics (Bar Siman-Tov is an economist). As such, her input was crucial. Yet she adamantly opposed expanding virus testing, even publicly asserting that “Too much testing will increase complacence.” She opposed letting organizations outside the public-health system do lab work for coronavirus tests, even though the system was overwhelmed. She opposed sewage monitoring to track the spread of the virus. And on, and on.

Moreover, even after acknowledging that test-and-trace was necessary, ministry bureaucrats insisted for months that their ministry do the tracing despite its glaringly inadequate manpower. Only in August was the job finally given to the army, which does have the requisite personnel. And the system still isn’t fully operational.

Read more
Archives